The Instigator
debating21
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Ren
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

That police should ONLY break up violent protests

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 950 times Debate No: 23494
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

debating21

Con

Protest have to be broken up when they keep others from being able to use public services. Take one of the Occupy protests last year for example. The protestors blocked a public bridge for hours, causing a massive traffic jam that lasted for hours. This caused several people to be late and some lost their jobs because of it. The police arrested the protestors. This case proves that police should not only break up violent protests but also non violent too.
Ren

Pro

Your initial post appears to be an argument, as opposed to an acceptance round. Thus, I will treat it accordingly.

Arguments

A1. Protests are generally considered protected under the First Amendement Right known as Freedom of Assembly (or, interchangeably, Freedom of Association). It essentially gives us the right to peaceably assemble. it also gives us the Right to appeal to the government for assistance with relief from grievance (1). This is an important Right, and a lot of precedent has been set to help narrow down what specifically it protects. For example, in Virgina vs Hicks (2), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that what was essentially construed as loitering is not protected by the Constitution. However, in Edwards vs South Carolina (3), it was made clear that peaceably assembling to support a view, no matter how unpopular it is, reflects the right our Bill of Rights aims to protect in its purest sense.

A2. Blocking traffic in general is illegal, and separate from Bill of Rights protections. It violates the modifier "peaceably." On the other hand, police officers should be treating protestors as citizens like any other, and should render due warnings. On the other hand, in New York City, during the Occupy Wall Street protests, the police may have actually been the cause of the blocked traffic in the first place, making those arrests unconstitutional (4).

Rebuttals

R1.
The only occassion during which the Occupy Wall Street protestors blocked a bridge was on the 2nd of October, when more than 700 protestors were arrested for walking across the bridge, blocking a single lane of traffic "for hours." Many of the protestors there claimed that they were actually instructed by the NYPD to walk on the street in the first place (4).

R2. Simply stating that something occurred does not prove that it was right. Indeed, the NYPD arrested over 700 protestors that day, and it may have been an abortion of justice.
Debate Round No. 1
debating21

Con

debating21 forfeited this round.
Ren

Pro

Ren forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
debating21

Con

debating21 forfeited this round.
Ren

Pro

Ren forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ren 5 years ago
Ren
Lol, I completely forgot to post my sources for the first round. They are:

1. http://www.lincoln.edu...

2. http://www.law.cornell.edu...

3. http://www.oyez.org...

4. http://abcnews.go.com...
No votes have been placed for this debate.